Hamster Droppings
The Ill-Informed Bigotry of the Family Research Council
In the world of the FRC, bigotry wins over logic and facts ...
By Eric Hananoki
Originally published in The Hamster, March 13, 2002

In every debate, there's a natural structure: one side makes an attack, based on logic and supported with evidence. The other side, too, presents its own attacks, supporting it with logic and evidence.

That's not the case with the debate over ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

If enacted, the bill, which has been stalled in Congress for nearly six years, would grant to gays the same protection against employment discrimination that minorities, women and the disabled receive.

This, of course, doesn't sit well with the Religious Right, including the Family Research Council, an ultra-conservative group that believes, "God is the author of life, liberty, and the family,” and that "the Judeo-Christian worldview is the basis for a just, free, and stable society."

However, in their opposition to the Senate bill, the FRC blatantly misrepresents the truth about ENDA and its true purpose. In crafting their "talking points" against ENDA, one wonders how far a religious group will go to preach the "word" of God.

Lie #1: Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged. There is no evidence for the oft-repeated assertion by proponents of ENDA that homosexuals, who enjoy higher disposable income levels than families, suffer systematic discrimination and have been excluded from full participation in the political process.

Fact: Notice how the FRC cites no evidence or sources for this contention. This, if you read the talking points, is a common theme in the FRC's attacks.

First and foremost, there is indeed evidence of discrimination. According to M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D. with Angles Research, between 27% and 68% of self-identified lesbians and gay men surveyed reported employment discrimination at some point in their lives. Further, according to a Northwestern Law Review study, 66% of Fortune 500 executives would hesitate to give a management level position to a gay or lesbian employee. As of 1998, there was "no openly gay man or woman [in] a senior executive position on a Fortune-level board."

Also, gay men earn less, not more, than straight men. In an analysis from Marieka Klawitter and Victor Flatt, gay men earned roughly 26% less than married men with the same education, geographic location, race, age, education, number of children, and disability status.

Lie #2: The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior. ENDA will require Americans to hire people they believe to be committing immoral acts precisely because they commit those acts. ENDA would approvingly bring private immoral behavior into the public square.

Fact: This argument is so ridiculous, I feel stupid even refuting it. First, ENDA is not an attempt to legitimize homosexual behavior; it is an attempt to create equality in a society where it is lacking. Also, the primary focus of the bill is not to legitimize sexual acts, but to legitimize a basic right: the right to work and provide for oneself.

The contention the Right often spouts is that ENDA will create "special rights" for gays. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in its 1996 decision, Evans v. Romer, anti-discrimination laws like ENDA would not create "special rights." ENDA prohibits affirmative action based on sexual orientation and forbids quotas of any kind.

Further, claiming Americans will hire people they believe to be committing immoral acts is irrelevant, since there is no reason to believe that homosexuals will commit homosexual acts AT WORK. By this same logic, anyone who does anything "immoral" in his spare time should not be hired: Jews, Arabs or Aethists; people who watch pornography; anyone who had an abortion.

Lie #3: The "religious exemption" included in the bill specifically excludes the for-profit activities of religious organizations. It is unlikely that ENDA's religious exemption would survive court challenge because it is likely to be construed narrowly, denying exemption to organizations that have a religious point of view but have no formal connection to a church. Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees.

Fact: Another untrue statement. First, the Boy Scouts have already survived a challenge regarding whether or not they had the right to dismiss gay scouts. Based on this precedent and voting pattern, there is no reason to believe that any challenges against religiously affiliated organizations would be sustained.

Lie #4: ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations. ENDA disregards the fact that sexual conduct may in fact be relevant to employment. Under such legislation employers in the area of education and childcare would be denied the right to refuse to hire homosexuals, even if they consider such persons to be inappropriate role models for children and young people.

Fact: This argument feeds into the myth that gays will either molest children or be "inappropriate role models for children." The facts, once again, paint a different story.

According to the American Psychological Association, "There is no evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." Further, the APA notes, "The presence of a gay role model does not encourage otherwise heterosexual children to adopt a homosexual orientation. Even in relationships as fundamental as that between a parent and child there is no evidence to suggest that children of gay fathers and lesbian mothers are more likely to be homosexual. The data show no elevated rate of homosexuality among adult children of lesbian and gay parents."

Lie #5: ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. "The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives." ... "This federal legislation violates states rights to set public policy regarding sexual behaviors deemed to cause harm to individual and society—a right enjoyed by every sovereign political entity."

Fact: The FRC claims ENDA violates the Constitution, but those rights are not allowed to limit another person's rights.

Also, this was the same argument against allowing protections for Blacks in the 50s and 60s. What the Religious Right is doing is repeating the sins of the past and transferring it to another oppressed group: gays.

As the ACLU points out, "When Congress debated the first post-Civil War civil rights bill in the 1860s, it was attacked as 'special rights'. When Congress took up the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opponents said it would destroy American business and individual freedom of choice. The truth is that both of those laws were about simple fairness, and they have made this country a far better place. ENDA is about fairness as well, and when it passes, it too will make this country a better place."

Lie #6: ENDA ignores the negative health risks of homosexual behavior. The Senate bill notes "an individual's sexual orientation bears no relationship to the individual's ability to contribute fully to the economic and civil life of society." This flies in the face of mounting medical evidence that homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, and directly contributes to the spread of numerous chronic and non-curable diseases.

Fact: Perhaps the most heinous of the arguments, the FRC seems to be saying that if we allow gays to work, they'll get more money and begin fornicating, giving each other diseases and plagues. They best thing, they claim, is to let them suffer socially and economically, so they won't be able to participate in any function of society that would allow them to accrue "the negative health risks of homosexual behavior."

I won't waste my time attacking this one.

The American Psychological Association notes, "the available studies indicate that same-sex attractions generally emerge by early or mid-adolescence without any prior sexual experience. And some people report trying very hard over many years to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

Homosexuality is something that people acquire from genetics. They do not control it.

According to the Bible, all of the people put on Earth are God's children. All are made differently, but molded in God's image.

If one accepts that hatred and bigotry against gays are right, they neglect the true meaning of the Bible: acceptance and love of all of God's children.

What the Family Research Council preaches is morally wrong. To advocate the destruction of a segment of the human race is not only bad public policy, it's unchristian.